1. The treatment for this completed essay will be the application of Tripp's technology of critical incident analysis on my chosen incident - DEADLY BARRIERS - Bicyclist (from here onwards will be referred to as cyclist) didn't see them in dark (Teh (2005)) to demonstrate its power of revealing the drivers that renders the incident critical, in showing the difficulties of policy development, and providing potential responses that may settle it.
2. The presentation of this article will contain the following five key headers. These are:
a. Outline of what I understood as ‘critical incident’,
b. Describe the incident under review,
a. Brief on the specific context of my workplace and broader political context within which the incident occurred,
b. Suggest the dilemmas for policy making evidenced by the incident, and
c. Present ways in which these dilemmas might be ‘settled’ under the notion of ‘policy settlement’.
Outline of What I Understood As ‘Critical Incident’
3. To understand the requirements for this activity, I believe I first must attain a degree of insight into what 'critical incident' is about. My original thought about ‘critical incident’ is just as it was - an incident of critical proportions.
4. However, on reading Burgum and Bridge (1997)'s article on their application of 'critical incident' as a tool for professional education to develop the skills on reflection and critical thinking amongst midwives, I discover that 'any event could be analysed to create a critical incident'.
5. My thoughts on the term achieve even greater clarity when I refer to Tripp (1993:24-25). He describes critical incidents as 'mostly straight forward accounts of very commonplace events that occur in routine professional practice which are critical in the rather different sense that they are indicative of underlying trends, motives and structures. These incidents appear to be 'typical' rather than 'critical' at first sight, but are rendered critical through analysis.' [I added the emphasis].
6. The stylised portion of the statement suggests that it is not how critical the impact of the event has on the stakeholders that makes it a 'critical incident'. It is the underlying currents of the incident as well as their ability to replicate and continue impacting others in future interactions that makes it critical. In order to understand these, we need to examine the occurrence, practices and discourses reflectively and critically.
7. By applying interpretation to the circumstances surrounding the incident and obtaining their broader meanings, I can learn from the occurrence, and with practice, the technique also creates a space (Tripp (1993):125-129) that withholds me from reacting instinctively to the event for its face value as it occurs. Metaphorically, this is like giving breathing a thought before inhaling the air.
8. In slowing time, I am helped to uncover options that are not available to me before, thereby increasing my flexibility in delivering a more comprehensive response and equitable settlement to an underlying need in a world of conflicting interests.
9. These suggest that the application of 'critical incident' analysis could:
Enhance Reflection. The need to analyse incidents provides the motivation to search for structures, which encourages better methods of looking at the incidents habitually, dedicating time for recalling the incident, and running through the sequence of the event reflectively. Tripp (1993:26) has advocated such an approach, which is what are asked for in this assignment.
Improve Critical Thinking. The most enlightening thing about Tripp's statement is that I don't have to wait for a critical incident to apply the analysis. Any ordinary incident is as good an item for analysis as long as we look at it critically through its contexts - political and social dimensions, to uncover its 'trends, motives and structures'.
Establish Positions. What is useful about the analysis is that the incident provides me an opportunity to determine a new stand on how I view the world, which I could apply in the future. The push to shift and establish new positions can challenge my long held values and beliefs systems, thereby encourages my professional development and growth.
Develop Strategies. From these new positions, more comprehensive and effective strategies and solutions could be developed to correct the errors in judgement, applied onto future events of a similar nature, and provide case studies for learning.
10. However, there is need for caution when using the technology:
a. The application of critical analysis does not lead to objectivity (Tripp (1993):30). The exercise may yield several meanings, which the practitioner must make a decision about choice. Therefore, we may have experienced the same incident but I could deliver a different set of intervention from you because of the differences in the space we operate from. Context is the king when applying 'critical incident' analysis.
b. The application of 'critical incident' analysis in practice must be carried out consciously. There are opportunities for me to understand the underlying currents, adopt a position, and introduce an intervention, which through time becomes routines, which could be problematic (Tripp (1993):14-15) itself.
Describe The Incident Under Review
11. Tripp ((1993):32:Figure 3) proposes the use of a diagnostic teaching cycle, which examines both the discourses and practices in teaching, as the strategy to observe an occurrence in order to describe it, and continue to analyse, interpret, act and evaluate it as an critical incident.
12. Burgum and Bridge (1997) demonstrates that the technology can be used beyond the field of education to training and development. I believe its application could even be more extensively applied to many other industries as long as it is related to the development of skills in reflection and critical thinking.
13. Bounded by the requirements of producing a detailed and systematic description of the incident, and ensuring that the details encompass properties of focus and enlargement (Tripp (1993):32-33), I decided to use a widely publicised incident that occurred in July of 2005. I will structure the description to meet the specifications of what deems as a good introduction to the incident for this assignment.
Deadly Barriers Incident
14. The metal barriers were installed to make the often used overhead bridge safer - by forcing cyclists to dismount and push their bicycles across the bridge. However, this did not happen in July 2005.
15. The contractors constructed the barriers on one side of the bridge, and a 40-year-old cyclist, who was on his way to a temple the next morning, came from the other side of the bridge and smashed into them. He, who reportedly didn't see the inverted U-shape metal frames, was badly injured and was paralysed from his neck down. The father of two young children frequently went down the ramp on his bicycle at about 6.30am every day.
16. News of the accident spread quickly in the neighbourhood, and here are the some of their reactions and responses as reported in the media:
a. Mr Ng, who was on the bridge at the time of the accident, said: 'There was an 80-year-old man who was going very fast. If I hadn't stopped him, he would have been hurt.
b. 'The authorities shouldn't do this. In the early morning, it's too dark to see. There should be flickering lights and warning signboards,' said Madam Ngoh, who uses the bridge daily to get to Pasir Ris Park for her morning exercise.
c. Another resident, Mr Goh Peng Hoon, 63, said he could easily have become a victim. 'My friend asked me to talk to him at the coffee shop, if not, I would also be cycling past here early in the morning,' said the retiree, who has been living in the area for 10 years.
d. Mr Ong Kian Min, the MP for Tampines GRC, said: 'They [the barriers] won't be put back up until LTA convinces us that it's safe.' He added: 'They rammed straight into the metal frames before even getting on the bridge. This is the stupidest device I've ever seen. It's right at throat level, it's suicidal. It may kill someone who is not aware [of its presence].'
e. Said Mr Tay: 'Such a serious thing has happened yet no action has been taken except by MP Ong Kian Min. What about those who approved of the barrier? I've only seen people taking pictures and making measurements.'
f. The LTA said: '[the contractor] did not follow the procedure of submitting a method statement on how they planned to install the barriers before starting work. They also did not complete the installation of the barriers on both ends of the pedestrian overhead bridge within the day, as he had planned to do. Had he done so, cyclists would have been forewarned of the barriers when they got on the pedestrian overhead bridge.'
g. As an immediate measure, the LTA will be improving the visibility of the barriers and installing signs to forewarn cyclists and pedestrians of the barriers. So far there have been no other incidents or any adverse feedback on the design. But the LTA said: 'We are sorry to learn of the cyclist's accident on 13 Jul.'
Brief On The Contexts Within Which The Incident Occurred
17. With the incident described, I will spend some time developing the infrastructure from which I start my analysis of the incident in the specific context of my workplace, which is the community that I live and work in.
18. Tripp (1993:124-141) mentions four kinds of judgement in professional teaching; namely, the practical, diagnostic, reflective, and critical judgement. While the given impression is that these are judgements made exclusively by teachers during their teaching practices, I believe they could have relevance in other professions even they may not be as necessary as in teaching or that there could be more than four judgements in professions outside of teaching.
19. Since this is the first time I am doing critical incident analysis, I will apply what Tripp (1993:27:Figure 2) introduces in teaching to guide me generate the questions to find the explanations and meanings within the immediate context to inform my judgement. From which, a position can be established to suggest ways that may cause a settlement.
20. Here is a list of questions to ask, information to acquire, and perspectives to draw on from the people involved:
Practical Judgement. The answers sought here relate to those judgements leading to instantaneous decisions and actions taken during the design, funding, installation and inspection of the barriers. Thus, the questions asked are very much procedural in nature:
§ What should the various stakeholders involved in finalising the design, funding, installation, and inspection of the barrier do?
§ What should be the specifications and standards in all these activities?
Diagnostic Judgement. Here, construction-specific answers are to be uncovered to look for information that could 'recognise, describe, understand, explain and interpret' (Tripp (1993):140) the practical judgements employed around the incident. These question are:
§ Descriptive
· What had happened?
· Who was mainly involved?
· Who was subsequently involved?
§ Causal
· What made it or could make it happen?
· Who acted or/and had not acted that could have caused the incident?
· What acted or/and had not acted that could have caused the incident?
§ Effectual
· What does it do immediately after incident?
· What does it do as an aftermath following the incident?
· For whom?
§ Affectual
· How does it immediately feel like for each type of participant involved in the incident?
· How does it feel like for each type of participant involved in the incident as an aftermath?
§ Semantic
· What does the incident mean to different stakeholders at different timeline?
· What does the incident mean to non-stakeholders?
Reflective Judgement. While both practical and diagnostic judgement looks at the facts of the incident, reflective judgement look at the reasons why I make it mean something a specific way. The information to uncover here relates to the values, mores and beliefs systems that are engaged before, during and after the incident.
§ Do I like what is unveiled in the diagnostic?
§ Is it a good or bad thing?
§ Why so?
Critical Judgement. This is what makes an ordinary incident critical. This is done by challenging and evaluating the values, judgements, and justifications revealed during reflection. This provides the information and stepping stone to determine the position I will take, from which all decisions can be made as planned respond to the given need.
§ What is it an example of?
§ Whose classification?
§ Is it just?
§ From whose perspective does this justice apply or does not apply?
Specific Context Of My Workplace Within Which The Incident Occurred
21. Armed with these questions, I will begin by offering, with the immediate context of the incident in mind, some of my initial explanations before suggesting the possible meanings.
22. There are several mindsets in operation that kept the stakeholders focused on one specific aspect of the issue and not the other. These unfocused components were not the kind the stakeholders habitually think of, which caused them to miss the 'implicit contradiction' (Tripp (1993):15) and opportunities to critically think about them when they were making professional judgements and decisions. I will list five of these below:
a. Deterrence-Safety Mindset. The objective of the barriers is to warn the cyclists against crossing the bridge while mounted on their bicycles. In order for the deterrent to work, it is important that the designers make the deterrence effective. The deterrent must present some elements of risk - potential injuries, restrictions to freedom of movement, or/and imposition of fines. Since handicaps are not the target of the barriers, the designers are willing to consider the feedback from the Handicapped Welfare Association and incorporate elements that do not impede their movements into the final design. For the handicaps, the barriers do not deter since there is little perceptible risks. The contradiction is that there must be a potential for harm in a given deterrence. Given this focus, safety of the mounted cyclist was not likely considered into the final design or deemed to be a priority of importance.
b. Legitimacy-Constituency Mindset. The Town Council, which represents the interests of its constituents, also funds the construction and installation of the barriers. Immediately, the contradiction is obvious. Cyclists, who cross the bridges like roads, are publicly frown at and socially sanctioned. Given this social stigma and status, the needs of cyclists' are largely unspoken, kept silenced, and ignored. They are not given the legitimacy to use the bridges as ordinary pedestrians, and the Town Council is keen to oppose them and have the matter resolved quickly. This is problematic because the Town Council focuses on protecting the legitimacy of the pedestrians over the rights of having all her constituents heard.
c. Exception-Responsiveness Mindset. The Land Transport Authority (LTA) is the agency that creates and responsible for the policies regarding the design, construction, installation, maintenance and inspection of these barriers. Their chosen mode of operation, which is management by exceptions, is problematic. Under such an arrangement, status quo is maintained until there are enough of complaints. This conflicts with responsiveness. While the contractor is blameworthy in the sense that the drawings were not submitted for approval prior to installation, LTA may not be freed from the responsibility of accepting a design that was not responsive to the realities of the kind of traffic on that bridge, and for not being responsive in ensuring closure in the approval process.
d. Cost-Quality Mindset. For the contractor, this was a piece of work that was of little difference from all others government tender projects. The pressure for efficient resource deployment, cost containment, and timeliness of completing the project may have kept contractor's focus on the installation and not on the users, who look for quality of the entire installation process..
e. Completion-Uncertainty Mindset. The need to establish policies that is complete and integral in an uncertain world saddled with diverse and ever changing viewpoints is problematic. This incident had led to a public outcry that strangely came not just from the community of cyclists but also from pedestrians and other motorists. This suggests that:
§ The pedestrians want their safety ensured but do not condone the use of instruments that hurt others. The designers took it on themselves to introduce barriers with strong deterrence attributes.
§ There was no universal agreement about the rights of mounted cyclists using the bridge. There are sympathisers but the Town Council chooses to respond to the more influential pedestrians lobby to complete the policy making exercise. LTA's mode of operation acerbated the situation.
23. So, what do all these undercurrents mean? They show that some deep seated values and beliefs are at work, which affected the judgements and decisions of the stakeholders. Let me point out five meanings detected during the analysis of the incident:
a. As long as we are doing something that is considered legitimate, generally accepted, and even celebrated, our rights will be recognised, protected and championed. We will continue to be heard, attended to, and cultivated. In the incident, the mounted cyclists are assigned no rights once they are on the bridge. Since their presence is considered a danger to the pedestrians and themselves, it has to be sanctioned, regardless whether they are constituents and have the same rights as pedestrians to have their needs considered into the final design of the policy.
b. The general accepted view is that cyclists are considered road users and should not be on the overhead bridges. There are a few high profile cases of cyclists injuring others, which caused many to perceive cyclists as a danger to themselves and irresponsible to others when on the bridge.
c. When there are good justifications against deviant behaviours, the deterrence used to discourage these tend to be effective and sometimes appear overkill. The incident showed that the barrier can kill as long as we choose to behave in a manner that is socially unacceptable.
d. There are also evidence suggesting the dependency on the government of the accepted constituent. Pedestrians left the problem to the authority to resolve; giving them full authority over the specifications relating to design, criteria for funding the project, methods of installing the barriers, and approaches of inspection and for obtaining feedback. The pedestrians left it to the authority to make all the judgement and decisions without asking if their demands are right, the barriers are safe, and if the cyclists should be given a fair opportunity to be heard.
e. As this is not a matter of national importance, LTA relegates the policies and their implementations to management by exception instead of active governance and community involvement.
Broader Political Context Within Which The Incident Occurred
2
4. To appreciate what the incident meant in the wider political context, I beg for the answers to four questions:
a. Why it matters to place barriers at the bridges in Singapore, and why the bridges matter to the mounted cyclists?
b. Are there dilemmas that caused such shortcomings, which are not attributable to the Town Council and LTA?
c. Are there non-events (Tripp (1993):24) that caused the incident?
25. I was surprised with the outcome after apply the 'Why Challenge' (Tripp (1993):46) to locate possible answers to the first question. It seems that the barriers are there not for the pedestrians but for winning of votes and taking of constituencies. These are what I came up with when the challenge was applied to 'Why it matters to place barriers at bridges in Singapore?'. It matters because:
a. The bridge is meant only for pedestrians.
b. The bridge is the least dangerous option available for circumventing the barriers installed at the road dividers. Others come with fines and accidents.
c. Afraid the pedestrians have another excuse for taking to the roads again, thereby causing pedestrian accidents and deaths.
d. This may cause an public outcry and gives the transport Minister, the Ministry of Transport and her statutory boards bad publicity and negative image.
e. For a performance based public service, this may signal that the Minister is not effective, and this affect his status and influence in the cabinet.
f. The opposition may pick this up as an issues in the next election, which may affect the Prime Minister's position as a politician and standing of political party in the country.
26. When I applied the same challenge to 'Why the bridges matter to the mounted cyclists?', I received another interesting outcome. Unlike cyclists in Japan, China and Australia, who are licensed road users, their counterparts in Singapore are not recognised as road users and accorded no rights and protection on the road. Given the obstructions laid at the road dividers, bridges become the only safe means to cross the roads for the cyclists.
27. By putting these two outcomes together, I observe a key contradiction (Tripp (1993):49) at work, which is cyclists are neither pedestrians nor motorists in Singapore, yet bicycles are designed as a steady mode of transportation but the roads are not made safe for their use. When there are no rules of engagement for cyclists when they are on the roads or on walking paths, they could only exist as a grey economy.
28. Since it is not clear if cyclists have their right of way, motorists and pedestrians alike do not know how to respond to cyclists when they are in their way. This poses a danger on the cyclists and other road and path users. The cyclists must have done some calculation about these risks and their needs travel, and concluded that between pedestrians sanction and motoring death, the use of pedestrian pathways is a safer option. It is this web of judgement and decisions that caused the injury and not the shortcoming of the policy itself, nor that of the Town Council and LTA.
29. There is some kind of ideology (Tripp (1993):56-57) in force. It suggests that the interests of pedestrians are protected. The protection created contradictions over the rights of different stakeholders, and bring them into conflict with one another other. The cyclists, who are the subordinated group, resist the rules that are imposed on them, which led to a public outcry from the dominated groups, which chastises the authorities for turning a blind eye on the cyclists. The pedestrians and motorists feel socially guilty for the incident and the tension is discomforting, which calls them into action. This demonstrates that the dominant group continues to seek ways of protecting its interests by speaking up for the subordinated cyclists.
Dilemmas For Policy Making Evidenced By The Incident
30. The analysis continues to reveal new dilemmas for policy making. The choice the current policy makers seem to take is to discourage the use of bicycle as a transportation device and relegate it to the sports. In doing so, they avoided the need for new discourses and practises that demand new resources. Considering the cyclists in the policy making process could opens new dilemmas which are problematic and is uncomfortable to the policy makers. These dilemmas are:
a. By recognising the cyclists, the authority may upset the equilibrium attained amongst the current set of road users. There could be a struggle for new definitions, relationships, resources and attention by the newly recognised road user. These may lead to new competition for space, distance, time and speed on the road. Given the overcrowded nature of our roads, this may bring forth new conflicts, contests, and arbitrations, which maybe socially and politically uncomfortable. Status quo is always good.
b. In recognising their rights, new policies will have to be put in place, and their implementation may call forth new infrastructures, rules, and regulations that cause road widening, rule changes to traffic lights, re-education of current road users, imposition of safety gears on cyclists and motorists, and the need for parking spaces, licensing enhancements, monitoring of use, and inspection of vehicles. These require public expenditure and have to be funded through taxes, which seems to be a sensitive matter in a country still faced with structural unemployment. The recent hikes in the Goods and Services Tax have unsettled Singaporeans, which raised heated debates on its pros and cons. Raising taxes do not go well with attracting foreign investments and talents to the nation in a highly competitive Asia Pacific.
c. There isn't a culture of safety amongst cyclists in Singapore. As cyclists exist in the grey economy, there is no impetus to cultivate safety in cycling and little investments are made by cyclists and other motorists to harden their vehicles and themselves against accidents. By recognising their rights, it is expected a certain degree of safety, in terms of gears, professional training and certification, and regular inspections, will be installed to ensure that bicycles and their riders are road worthy. These spell new legal and administrative costs, which may drive the cyclists underground instead of making them coming forward as a legitimate entity. Many may even abandon cycling entirely.
d. There was an attempt in the late 1990s to encourage pedestrians to convert to cycling. The idea was to encourage the use of bicycles as a method to connect the pedestrians to the Mass Rapid Transport (MRT) stations, thereby reducing the dependency on feeder buses, which were operation at a lost at that time. The experiment did not take off, and since 2000, parking lots for bicycles at the MRTs stations were removed. In a performance based civil service, attending to the needs of her constituents is important, but there are potential risks of failures where social experiments fail. This could be politically fatal for the individuals promoting and lobbying the rights of cyclists in their discourses.
Ways in Which These Dilemmas Might Be ‘Settled’
31. The current settlement is not consensual. Cyclists are not acknowledged and are dominated by the interests of pedestrians and motorists. This lack of legitimation causes the policy to take on temporarily status as crisis of outcries and indignations over the lack of rights and having to exist in the gray economy flare up regularly each time there are accidents leading to injuries and deaths. There are attempts to improve the situation by removing the barriers from the bridges and imposing the S$1,000 fine on cyclist for crossing the bridge on the mount. However, these efforts are highly contextual and are fixated at concealing the true nature of the problem. The authorities will continue to appeal to our common sense by highlighting that in a land scarce Singapore, cyclists do not have a place in the country and should be relegated to the fringes of the nation. We will continue to see cyclists circumventing the rules and regulations imposed on them because of their status.
32. Given this outlook, I propose three ways that maybe settlement for the incident:
Apply the ‘generative politics’ approach, which involves the community in meeting the needs of the cyclists. This includes providing guidelines to Town Councils on demarking areas with have amble space for cycling activities. The scheme has been place for some time at East Coast Road, where pedestrian walkways are shared with cyclists. The extension of this experiment to other parts of Singapore is useful. The community could be gravitated to increase the profile of bicycles as a viable and safe mode of transport, and communicate that bicyclists are as responsible as those motorised versions on the roads. Community centres are good outfits for generating adventure rides for cyclists wanting to take on to the roads. Such outings provide all motorists the experience of interacting with each other on the road.
Adopt a ‘structural policy’ response by shifting the burden of safety for the cyclists from the government to the merchants and owners of bicycles, cars and motorcycles. This shift helps start an economy of safety consciousness, which include hardening the transportation devices, drivers, passengers and other road users against accidents the cause damages, injuries and deaths. In addition, early settlements may include giving all motorists new rules of engagement with the cyclists and establishing the right of way for the cyclists. In doing so, all road participants have a common language to communicate with each other on the road.
Take to the ‘conjunctural policy’ response, which will charge the cyclists for using the roads. These charges may include licence fees, road taxes and toll fares, which could pave the way for the cyclists to go on the roads as a fully recognised user in the near future.
Conclusion
33. I have moments of hesitation over the choice of activity to submit for Assignment Two. Finally, I settle with critical incident analysis, and I am humbled by the experience of completing it.
34. The incident is critical in every way. It was a severe accident and someone was critically injured. On the face of it, the rider, Town Council and LTA are blameworthy. However, on closer examination, things may not be as simple. The web of values, judgement, decisions and actions have come into play, and created circumstances beyond the awareness and control of the stakeholders. It is as if the rider is destined to be paralysed from neck down. If the discourses continue to be closed and restrictive, settlement could be in a structure that is the same as the last. Another accident most likely will repeat in the near future as stakeholders continue to do more or less of what they have done before in creating policies, in adhering to rules of implementation, and in establishing governance. Breakthroughs could be difficult when the underlying currents continued to be sustained and played out, and where changes are applied to control the symptoms rather than the drivers of the incident. This is problematic and is making the incident very critical.
35. I am excited with the outcomes, discoveries, and experience. I believe these need not have to exist in this document. The insights can be practically applied through active engagement with the government and her communities.
Footnote:
Paralysed cyclist gets $800k (News Coverage Extracted from 27/3/2008's Today Newpaper)
MORE than two years after he was left paralysed from the neck down after crashing into a metal barrier at an overhead bridge in Tampines, a cyclist has finally been awarded nearly $800,000 in compensation.
Mr Koh Liep Hang, 43, had earlier sued the Land Transport Authority (LTA) and barrier contractor Koh Brothers for negligence, resulting in his injury and wanted about $1 million in compensation.
Last August, Mr Koh dropped the lawsuit against the LTA, and agreed to bear 35 per cent of the responsibility for the July 2005 accident, with Koh Brothers bearing 65 per cent, reported Lianhe Zaobao yesterday.
In an earlier Today report, the LTA had been quoted as saying that the contractor did not follow proper procedures when installing those barriers.
Mr Koh, a father of two young children, told the Chinese newspaper that it had been depressing period for his family. While he is able to lift his hands, communicate and eat normally, his fingers and legs have no strength.
When contacted, Member of Parliament for Tampines GRC, Mr Ong Kian Min, told Today that he was happy that the parties "have come to an amicable settlement". The "unfortunate incident" serves as a lesson that such barriers have to be carefully designed so that they will not harm the public. — Alicia Wong
Reference
Burgum, M. and Bridge, C. (1997). Using critical incidents in professional education to develop skills of reflection and critical thinking.
Teh Jen Lee (16 July 2005). DEADLY BARRIERS - Cyclist didn't see them in dark, Singapore: The New Paper.
Tripp, D. (1993). Critical incidents in teaching. Developing professional judgement. London: Routledge.
This essay was first completed on 19 Apr 2007 and updated with the Footnote on 28 Mar 2007.
Copyright 2007. Anthony Mok. All Rights Reserved.
0 comments:
Post a Comment